Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query international returned 103 results.

Your search has returned a large number of results. You might want to consider using additional terms to narrow it.

	UNITED STATES V. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP., 517 U.S. 843 (1996). [Syllabus]
	CAREY V. POPULATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL [Dissent]
	HEFFRON V. INTERNATIONAL SOC'Y FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS [Syllabus]
	HEFFRON V. INTERNATIONAL SOC'Y FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS [Opinion]
	INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW V. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC. [Syllabus]
	CAREY V. POPULATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL [Concurrence]
	HEFFRON V. INTERNATIONAL SOC'Y FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ROTARY INTERNATIONAL V. ROTARY CLUB OF DUARTE [Syllabus]
	INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS, INC. V. LEE [Opinion]
	INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS, INC. V. LEE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW V. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC. [Concurrence]
	INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS, INC. V. LEE [Concurrence]
	HEFFRON V. INTERNATIONAL SOC'Y FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ROTARY INTERNATIONAL V. ROTARY CLUB OF DUARTE [Opinion]
	INTERNATIONAL SHOE V. STATE OF WASHINGTON [Syllabus]
	INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS, INC. V. LEE [Syllabus]
	CAREY V. POPULATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL [Concurrence]
	INTERNATIONAL SHOE V. STATE OF WASHINGTON [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	HEFFRON V. INTERNATIONAL SOC'Y FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW V. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC. [Opinion]
	INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS, INC. V. LEE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	CAREY V. POPULATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL [Syllabus]
	HEFFRON V. INTERNATIONAL SOC'Y FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	CAREY V. POPULATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL [Concurrence]
	INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW V. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC. [Concurrence]
	INTERNATIONAL SHOE V. STATE OF WASHINGTON [Opinion]
	CAREY V. POPULATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL [Opinion]
	INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS, INC. V. LEE [Concurrence]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP., 517 U.S. 843 (1996). [Syllabus]
	MEDELLIN V. TEXAS [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	SPECTOR V. NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD. [Syllabus]
	EL AL ISRAEL AIRLINES, LTD. V. TSUI YUAN TSENG [Syllabus]
	ABBOTT V. ABBOTT [Syllabus]
	HAMDAN V. RUMSFELD [Syllabus]
	QUALITY KING DISTRIBUTORS, INC. V. LANZA RESEARCH INT., 523 U.S. 135 (1998) [Syllabus]
	WHARF (HOLDINGS) LTD. V. UNITED INT’LHOLDINGS, INC. SYLLABUS [Syllabus] A company that sells an option to buy stock while secretly intending never to honor the option violates §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which prohibits using "any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance" "in connection with the purchase or sale of any security."
	CITY OF CHICAGO V. INTERN'L COLLEGE OF SURGEONS, 522 U.S. 156 (1997) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	J. E. M. AG SUPPLY, INC. V. PIONEER HI-BREDINTERNATIONAL, INC. [Syllabus] Utility patents may be issued for newly developed plant breeds under 35 U. S. C. §101; neither the Plant Variety Protection Act nor the Plant Patent Act of 1930 limits the scope of §101's coverage.
	[Syllabus]
	CORTEZ BYRD CHIPS, INC. V. BILL HARBERTCONSTR. CO. [Syllabus] Whether a suit to vacate an arbitration award may be brought in the district in which the events in the underlying dispute occurred.
	SEMTEK INT’L INC. V. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP. [Syllabus] 1. Is this Court's holding in Dupasseur-- that the resjudicata effect of the judgment of a federal court sitting in diversity ""is such as would belong to judgments of the State courts rendered under similar circumstances,"" and that ""no higher sanctity or effect can be claimed,"" 88 U. S. at 135-- still good law? 2. If Dupasseur is overruled or modified by this Court, what should be the res judicata effect of a statute of limitations dismissal in a federal court diversity suit?"
	[Syllabus]
	SINOCHEM INTL CO. V. MALAYSIA INTL SHIPPINGCORP. [Syllabus]
	GOODYEAR DUNLOP TIRES OPERATIONS, S. A.V.BROWN [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	SOSA V. ALVAREZ-MACHAIN [Syllabus] (1) Whether the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), 28 U.S.C. 1350 creates a private cause of action for aliens for torts committed anywhere in violation of the law of nations or treaties of the United States or, instead, is a jurisdiction-granting provision that does not establish private rights of action? (2) Whether, to the extent that the Alien Tort Statute is not merely jurisdictional in nature, the challenged arrest in this case is actionable under the act? (3) Whether federal law enforcement officers, and agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration in particular, have authority to enforce a federal criminal statute that applies to acts perpetrated against a United States official in a foreign country by arresting an indicted criminal suspect on probable cause in a foreign country? (4) Whether an individual arrested in a foreign country may bring an action under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 1346(b), 2671 et seq., for false arrest, notwithstanding the FTCA's exclusion of "[a]ny claim arising in a foreign country," 28 U.S.C. 2680(k), because the arrest was planned in the United States?
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. HAGGAR APPAREL CO. [Syllabus]
	INTEL CORP. V. ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. [Syllabus]
	NORFOLK SOUTHERN R. CO. V. JAMES N. KIRBY,PTY LTD. [Syllabus]
	VIMAR SEGUROS Y REASEGUROS, S. A. V. M/V SKY REEFER, 515 U.S. 528 (1995). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	AMERICAN INS. ASSN. V. GARAMENDI [Syllabus] California's Holocaust Victim Insurance Relief Act (HVIRA) requires California insurers to provide extensive information regarding every insurance policy issued in Nazi dominated Europe between 1920 and 1945 by any insurer with which the California insurer now has a legal relationship. The district court enjoined enforcement of the Act on three constitutional grounds: interference with the federal government's power over foreign affairs, due process, and the Foreign Commerce Clause. Over the objections of the U.S. government and affected foreign governments, and in direct conflict with Gerling Global Reinsurance Corp. v. Gallagher, 267 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2001), the Ninth Circuit reversed and upheld the HVIRA in all respects. 1. Whether the HVIRA, which the U.S. government has called an actual interference with U.S. foreign policy, and which affected foreign governments have protested as inconsistent with international agreements, violates the foreign affairs doctrine of Zschering v. Miller, 389 U.S. 429 (1968). 2. Whether the HVIRA, which attempts to regulate insurance transactions that occurred overseas between foreign parties more than half a century ago, exceeds California's legislative jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause. 3. Whether the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. 1011-1015, insulates the HVIRA form review under the Foreign Commerce Clause.
	UNITED STATES V. LOCKE [Syllabus] Whether regulations adopted by the State of Washington governing staffing and operation of oceangoing oil tankers engaged in coastal and international commerce are preempted to the extent that they conflict with international obligations of the United States and Coast Guard regulations for such tankers promulgated pursuant to federal statutes and international conventions and agreements.
	RUHRGAS AG V. MARATHON OIL CO. [Syllabus]
	561 U. S. ____ (2010) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	MINISTRY OF DEFENSE AND SUPPORT FOR ARMEDFORCES OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN V.ELAHI [Syllabus]
	GRANITE ROCK CO. V. TEAMSTERS [Syllabus]
	UNICODE VALUE='8195'>KAWASAKI KISEN KAISHA LTD. V. REGAL-BELOIT CORP. [Syllabus]
	REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA V. ALTMANN [Syllabus] Does the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) confer jurisdiction in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California over the Republic of Austria and the state-owned Austrian Gallery in a suit alleging wrongful appropriation of six Gustav Klimt paintings from their rightful heirs?
	RAPANOS V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	BECK V. PACE INTL UNION [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES SHOE CORP., 523 U.S. 360 (1998) [Syllabus]
	MUNAF V.GEREN [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. FLORES-MONTANO [Syllabus] Whether, under the 4th Amendment, customs officers at the international border must have reasonable suspicion in order to remove, disassemble, and search a vehicle's gas tank for contraband?
	PASQUANTINO V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. EURODIF S. A. [Syllabus]
	JPMORGAN CHASE BANK V. TRAFFIC STREAM (BVI)INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. [Syllabus] A corporation organized under the laws of the British Virgin Islands is a "citize[n] or subjec[t] of a foreign state" for purposes of alienage diversity jurisdiction, 28 U. S. C. §1332(a)(2).
	[Syllabus]
	EXXON MOBIL CORP. V. ALLAPATTAH SERVICES, INC. [Syllabus]
	J. MV. NICASTRO [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	TEXTRON LYCOMING RECIPROCATING ENGINE DIV., AVCO CORP. V. AUTOMOBILE WORKERS, 523 U.S. 653 (1998) [Syllabus]
	CARLSBAD TECHNOLOGY, INC. V. HIF BIO, INC. [Syllabus]
	GRAHAM V. FLORIDA [Syllabus]
	ARIZONA V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus]
	GONZALES V. RAICH [Syllabus]
	BOEING CO. V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Title 26 CFR §1.861-8(e)(3) (1979)-which governs allocation of research and development expenses in computing taxable income from export sales entitled to special tax treatment under Internal Revenue Code provisions pertaining to "domestic international sales corporations" and "foreign sales corporations"-is a proper exercise of the Secretary of the Treasury's rulemaking authority.
	ZICHERMAN V. KOREAN AIRLINES CO. LTD., 516 U.S. 217 (1996) [Syllabus]
	BLACK V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	UNITED DOMINION INDUSTRIES, INC. V.UNITED STATESSYLLABUS [Syllabus] The "product liability loss" (PLL) of an affiliated group of corporations electing to file a consolidated federal income tax return must be figured on a consolidated, single-entity basis, not by aggregating PLLs separately determined company by company.
	UNITED STATES V. BESTFOODS, 524 U.S. 51 (1998) [Syllabus]
	ENGINE MFRS. ASSN. V. SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITYMANAGEMENT DIST. [Syllabus] Whether local government regulations prohibiting the purchase of new motor vehicles with specified emission characteristics--which are otherwise approved for sale by state and federal regulators--are preempted by the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.
	PERMANENT MISSION OF INDIA TO UNITED NATIONS V.CITY OF NEW YORK [Syllabus]
	STOLT-NIELSEN S. A. V. ANIMALFEEDS INTL CORP. [Syllabus]
	OKLAHOMA TAX COMM'N V. CHICKASAW NATION, 515 U.S. 450 (1995). [Syllabus]
	POSTAL SERVICE V. FLAMINGO INDUSTRIES (USA) LTD. [Syllabus] The federal antitrust laws apply to a person, which is defined to include corporations and associations existing under or authorized by the laws of * * * the United States. 15 U.S.C.7 (sherman Act), 12 (a) (Clayton Act). The question presented is whether the United States Postal Service is a person amenable to suit under the antitrust laws.
	ROPER V. SIMMONS [Syllabus]
	HILL V. COLORADO [Syllabus] 1. Does Colorado's statutory requirement that speakers obtain consent from passersby on public sidewalks and streets before speaking, displaying signs, or distributing leaflets unconstitutionally burden protected expressive rights in a traditional public forum? 2.Does Colorado's statutory designation of private citizens as censors of speech, picket signs, and leaflets on public streets and sidewalks impose an unconstitutional prior restraint? 3. Is a statute that gives broad discretion to passersby in public places to act as censors of speech, picket signs, and leaflets and which fails to prohibit content-based denials of the right to speak, to display signs, or to pass leaflets subject to strict scrutiny? 4. Is a statute that gives broad discretion to passersby in public places to act as censors of speech, picket signs, and leaflets and which fails to prohibit viewpoint-based denials of the right to speak, to display signs, or to pass leaflets unconstitutional per se?
	[Syllabus]
	14 PENN PLAZA LLC V. PYETT [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. TASINI [Syllabus] Where freelance authors' articles in print periodicals were republished in electronic databases without the authors' consent, the copying was not authorized by the reproduction privilege afforded collective works publishers under §201(c) of the Copyright Act.
	UNITED STATES V. BAJAKAJIAN, 524 U.S. 321 (1998) [Syllabus]
	MURPHY BROTHERS, INC. V. MICHETTI PIPESTRINGING, INC. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	CHANDRIS, INC. V. LATSIS, 515 U.S. 347 (1995). [Syllabus]
	ROCKWELL INTL CORP. V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	DUNN V. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, 519 U.S. 465 (1997). [Syllabus]
	OLYMPIC AIRWAYS V. HUSAIN [Syllabus] Whether the accident condition precedent to air carrier liability for a passenger's death under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention is satisfied when a passenger's pre-existing medical condition is aggravated by exposure to a normal condition in the aircraft cabin, even if the carrier's negligence were a link in the chain, of causation? The Ninth Circuit's answer to this question in the affirmative directly conflicts with the Third and Eleventh Circuit decisions in Abramson v. Japan Airlines, Co., Ltd., 739 F.2d 130 (3d Cir. 1984), cert. Denied, 470 U.S. 1059 (1985) and Krys v. Lufthansa German Airlines, 119 F.3d 1515 (11th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1111 (1998), and is contrary to the Court's decision in Air France. Saks, 470 U.S. 392 (1985).
	CHRISTOPHER V. HARBURY [Syllabus] Respondent did not state an actionable claim when she alleged that she was denied access to courts by Government officials, who intentionally deceived her in concealing information that her husband had been tortured and killed by the Guatemalan army.
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	WALL V. KHOLI [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. MEAD CORP. [Syllabus] A Customs ruling letter has no claim to deference under Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, but, under Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U. S. 134, it is eligible to claim respect according to its persuasiveness.
	F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE LTD. V. EMPAGRAN S.A. [Syllabus] (1) Whether under the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act of 1982 (FTAIA), 15 U.S.C. § 6a, the Sherman Act applies to claims of foreign plaintiffs whose injuries do not arise from the effects of antitrust violations on United States commerce? (2) Whether such foreign plaintiffs lack antitrust standing under Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15(a)?
	SANCHEZ-LLAMAS V. OREGON [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	DENVER AREA EDUCATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSORTIUM, INC,., ET AL. V. F.C.C., 518 U.S. 727 (1996) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	JOHN R. SAND & GRAVEL CO. V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	RENO V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, 117 S.CT. 2329, 138 L.ED.2D 874 (1997) [Syllabus]
	DICKERSON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] 1. Whether the passage of 18 U.S.C. 3501 Was an unconstitutional attempt by Congress to legislatively overrule the Supreme Court's decision in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)?"
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	KSR INTL CO. V. TELEFLEX INC. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	AMERICAN NEEDLE, INC. V. NATIONALFOOTBALL LEAGUE [Syllabus]
	ARKANSAS ED. TELEVISION COMM'N V. FORBES, 523 U.S. 666 (1997) [Syllabus]